no title

Gun debate should be informed by data

Letters Policy

The Dispatch welcomes letters to the editor from readers. Typed letters of 200 words or
fewer are preferred; all might be edited. Each letter must include name, home address and daytime
phone number.
Dispatch.com also posts letters that don't make it to print in
The Dispatch.

Regarding the debate over whether to make Ohio a "stand-your-ground" state: There likely is no
political issue in the U.S. that seems to rely almost entirely on emotion and groundless
prognostication as much as the gun-rights issue.

It is only when there is a heinous event involving guns, like the Sandy Hook Elementary School
killings, that people who didn't even have guns on their radar suddenly become energized by grief
and anger and an innate need to identify and vilify someone or something.

Those on the anti-gun side parrot gloom-and-doom talk of our communities becoming like the wild,
wild West. This claim was put forth loud and clear, first when Ohio became a concealed-carry state,
and again when Ohioans were permitted to carry guns in bars.

At least, to date, this doomsday scenario filled with gun chaos has not come to pass.

Statistics regarding crimes committed by concealed-carry-permit holders are collected in some
states on an annual or a historical basis.

In Kansas, since the concealed-carry law was passed in 2007, of the 51,078 people who obtained
permits, 44 committed a crime: 0.002 percent.

In Texas in 2011, the numbers were 120 crimes committed by the annual total of 63,679 permits
issued, or 0.09 percent. While there may be some vari-

ance in the state-by-state statistics, all are quite low.

By now, we should be able to collect and interpret data on the federal level to get the answers
to questions comparing crime rates in stand-your-ground states versus others. For example, what is
the incidence of the use of deadly force by permit holders?

What is the incidence of concealed-carry permit holders who have been charged criminally or
successfully sued civilly for an inappropriate use of force?

How many times were concealed-carry holders injured or killed by criminals?

These are but three possible questions among many others, but even answering those could be
valuable in guiding this debate, or at least more valuable than both sides droning the same tired
sound bites.

We should be determining the outcome of important public-policy debates not by who can shout the
shrillest or the loudest, but instead by a data-based analysis of what has been, to guide our
decisions about what is to be.